SEEU Review vol. 6 Nr. 2 (pdf) - South East European University

Dennis J. Farrington, PhDstatement was published without actual malice or gross negligence and thatthe earliest opportunity was taken to publish an apology. 71 Section 7(2)Defamation Act 1952 applies to newspaper reports of the general meetingsof companies incorporated by charter or under the Companies Acts. Section1 Defamation Act 1996 has amended the law in respect of so-called‘innocent’ publication. It does not amount to slander of property forsomeone to state that his or her article or service is better than that of a rivaland to give reasons for that statement, even though the reasons involvedisparagement of the rival’s product. 72 In this context, the advice offered bythe British Council in its Code of Professional Standards and Ethics foroverseas recruiters essentially outlaws HEIs from making negativecomparisons with others for the purpose of persuading students to enrol. 73The Internet in HEIsAs WIPO stated more than a decade ago: ‘The Internet does not have acentral point of authority and control …Compared to other socialinstitutions, it has developed in a spontaneous and autochthonous manner…The Internet is multi - jurisdictional. Users can access it from any place onearth. It is a global medium transposed on the historical system of separatephysical jurisdictions …The Internet is un-specifically regulated. It isaffected by legislation and regulation that apply generally within the variousjurisdictions of the world. But for the most part …there have been fewexercises of national legislative authority specifically directed at theInternet 74 and no international legislative instruments specifically designedto regulate the Internet.’ 75 Like the public at large, students and staff of HEIscan access virtually any kind of information, illegal or legal, via the Internetunless it is restricted on a national basis by a range of devices: IP blocking,DNS filtering and redirection, URL filtering or packet filtering, connectionreset or reverse surveillance. 76 All of these methods can be circumventedeventually, using proxy websites, virtual private networks, ‘sneakernets’ orspecial software 77 , but the use of filtering software has an intended effect71727374757677Libel Act 1843 s 2.White v Mellin [1895] AC 154; Hubbuck v Wilkinson [1899] 1 QB 86.British Council, ECS Code of Professional Standards and Ethics (2000).With the exception of the US CAN-SPAM anti-spamming legislation discussed later.WIPO, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (1999).For a discussion of the relative merits of blocking and filtering see CSIRO (Australia)Media Release, Content Blocking on the Internet 99/75 (1999).E.g. I2P, Tor, Java Anon Proxy, Psiphon.26